Should Catholics be concerned about animals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drawmack said:
Fossil evidence indicates that Humans and Dinosaurs did not live at the same time period. I’m not expert, so there may be some overlap but for the most part humans and dinosaurs did not walk the earth at the same time according to the fossil record.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it strange that there are no human fossils dating any older then 250 thousand years old, literally no older than that! So I guess it is true that we did not exist at the same time… Did God make dinosaurs first then?🤷
I won’t bring the thread off topic; only a few post should be enough to answer this. 😉

Thank you drawmack!😃

xxx zundrah xxx
 
Bill_Cherry said:
I agree that not all of the issues they discuss are always directly in line with our doctrine. But, neither are the more conservative types on the air. Glenn Beck, for instance is a Catholic turned Mormon. And ones faith always plays a role in politics, regardless of the separation of church and state issue.

Because my faith plays such a large role in how I choose to vote and live, I can not, in good conscience, claim strict fidelity to either end of the political spectrum. I am pro-life and I am pro-environmental. It presents a strange feeling of being a misfit. But, I am convinced that the Holy See knows what they are doing. As I said in an earlier post, the lines demarcating Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism are growing thinner everyday in the media.

I know that many of the hunters associations are concerned about wildlife habitat. But, I doubt that it is because love of Christ is flowing through them towards the animals.(compassion) It is more likely that their concern is whether or not they are going to have game to harvest and trophies to show off. (gluttony and pride)
Click to expand...
I kind of don’t fit in with all the conservative issues, either.Especially on the death penalty.And I consider myself a pro-life feminist, which puts me right in the line of fire from both “traditional” Catholics & the “feminazis’” Rush used to talk about.
I doubt we’d agree on most political issues but you bring up a good point re. our Faith.It’s supposed to be universal & beyond strict secular political lines.
I believe hunters’ goals in preserving wildlife habitat are to protect the wildlife that they hunt.And I think they’re pretty up front about that.You can care about the environment & animals while still harvesting game for the freezer.Most hunters I’ve known do not waste their meat.We’ve benefited from many a deer dropped off at our home by generous hunter friends.Not sure how gluttony would fit into the issue.There’s not a huge amount of meat on most game.
Our Lord called fishermen to be his disciples.And told them where to cast their nets.Beats any electronic fish locating device from Bass Pro Shops!😉
 
Bill_Cherry said:
Well, feces or manure which comes from a meat eating diet is not considered organic. **I was unaware of that. Then nothing fertilized by chicken manure is ever organic, whether they are “range raised” or not. Food from Japan is almost never organic. Food from the sea, whether vegetable or not, can never be known to be organic, and probably never is. Interesting. The only real suggestion I can make for persons who are concerned about this is to buy as LOCAL as you can, or raise your own, if possible. ** Of course, one would have a lot of difficulty doing that in the winter in most of the U.S. But I don’t guess we have to eat fresh vegetables in the winter and can, as did our great-grandparents, eat canned vegetables with onions and potatoes from the cellar. That’s the way I grew up, and it’s not a hardship if you’re used to it.

I also think that private institutes should be created to do the inspecting. Each one answerable to it’s own county or state. Free enterprise/capitalism will see that the food processing facilities will be inspected thoroughly as the jobs and reputations of the inspectors would be on the line. Whereas, a government employee who is lackadaisical is almost impossible to fire unless they commit a crime. The food trail would be easier to trace, and possibly the threat of tainted food could be detected earlier before it reaches the consumer.
Click to expand...
I am no defender of federal intrusion. Still, I have watched the USDA people at work in meat processing plants, and I would not readily call them lackadaisical. “Irascible” more readily comes to my mind as a typical descriptor. Possibly part of the reason is that there are other inspectors “down the line” who would see any lapse by an inspector “up the line”. Meat products go past a number of inspectors before being shipped for human consumption. Part of the problem with contamination, of course, is that there are malevolent people in the world who deliberately contaminate. I have seen it, and, of course, that’s why containers of medication are now so hard to open. So, while I am a strong believer in subsidiarity, I’m not sure I’m greatly dissatisfied with USDA performance.

As a possibly interesting aside, for a long time there was a “Kosher line” in a local poultry plant. There still is in others, and “Halal” lines in still others. My understanding is that the two are very similar. With the Kosher lines, every step of the way was inspected by Rabbis, whose salaries were paid by the processor. There was very little difference in the “Kosher lines” and the ordinary lines; the differences principally being in the timing, as there were particular things the Rabbis had to do. Saying prayers at different junctures, as I recall, was part of it. Also, the Rabbi had to personally certify that each individual chicken going to the Kosher market was, in fact, Kosher.

It would not be the worst thing in the world to supplement USDA inspection in that manner, though it would not have to be religious. Being Kosher added to the cost, of course, but to my understanding, not all that much.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
I also find it interesting that some folks are more interested in shouting their opinion rather than reading what the church fathers have to say. Every post that has a reference to the Vatican or one of the church fathers seems to be conveniently ignored. Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...
Bill, you have not said anything worth commenting on. These things are a non-issue with people. There are a multitude of real issues involving gods creation that are much more deserving of your time, and skill.
ATB
 
Bill_Cherry said:
I also find it interesting that some folks are more interested in shouting their opinion rather than reading what the church fathers have to say. Every post that has a reference to the Vatican or one of the church fathers seems to be conveniently ignored. Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...
Has the Catholic Church declared hunting or eating meat a sin?
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Bill, you have not said anything worth commenting on. These things are a non-issue with people. There are a multitude of real issues involving gods creation that are much more deserving of your time, and skill.
ATB
Click to expand...
Well thank you very much for your feedback

This is from
U.S. House of Representatives
June 29, 2006

TESTIMONY
by
Brother David Andrews, CSC
Executive Director
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
.The current Holy Father, Benedict the XVI said the following about animal welfare: When he was asked about cruelty to animals in a 2002 interview, he said, “That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures… Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”
Click to expand...
Then Cardinal Ratzinger was echoing official church teachings laid out in the Catholic Catechism, which states clearly that “Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”
Click to expand...
Is this not worthy enough of attention? Or perhaps there is something more important I could be doing. Like mowing the lawn, I suppose. It does need to be done.
 
Here’s something about livestock production that does disturb me a bit, at least aesthetically: dairy cows having a good part of their tails docked. I know there are sanitary reasons behind it, but it does look awful. And the poor things cant whisk off the flies.Guess fly repellent takes care of that, though.
I’ve been hit in the head many a time while milking by a heavy,burr & manure covered tail, so I get the practical reasoning behind it but it still looks wrong…Just saying.
 
Cracker_Mom said:
Here’s something about livestock production that does disturb me a bit, at least aesthetically: dairy cows having a good part of their tails docked. I know there are sanitary reasons behind it, but it does look awful. And the poor things cant whisk off the flies.Guess fly repellent takes care of that, though.
I’ve been hit in the head many a time while milking by a heavy,burr & manure covered tail, so I get the practical reasoning behind it but it still looks wrong…Just saying.
Click to expand...
I have never seen dairy cows with docked tails, so that must be something fairly new, or perhaps regional. Frankly, I don’t see the sense in it either. Given the way milking runways are constructed now, and with milking machines, I would not think a swinging tail would be all that great a hazard. It may be the idea is to keep things cleaner by preventing a manure-befouled brush from contacting the back of the udder. But I would think the contamination danger from that would be extremely minimal, given that they always swab the udders down with disinfectant prior to milking anyway.🤷
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have never seen dairy cows with docked tails, so that must be something fairly new, or perhaps regional. Frankly, I don’t see the sense in it either. Given the way milking runways are constructed now, and with milking machines, I would not think a swinging tail would be all that great a hazard. It may be the idea is to keep things cleaner by preventing a manure-befouled brush from contacting the back of the udder. But I would think the contamination danger from that would be extremely minimal, given that they always swab the udders down with disinfectant prior to milking anyway.🤷
Click to expand...
Maybe it is a regional thing:confused:
We have friends who run a dairy a few counties away. I’ll try & ask them what the deal is.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
Well thank you very much for your feedback

This is from
U.S. House of Representatives
June 29, 2006

TESTIMONY
by
Brother David Andrews, CSC
Executive Director
National Catholic Rural Life Conference

Is this not worthy enough of attention? Or perhaps there is something more important I could be doing. Like mowing the lawn, I suppose. It does need to be done.
Click to expand...
Then Cardinal now Pope Ratzinger speaks with an insite I’ll never share. But, he did say needlessly kill or even cause to suffer. All the animals we are discussing I think, are used for food. This is by nature of the act needful. The issues I refered too were such as Abortion, Homelessness, drug and Alcohol addiction, genocide, and the murder of christians and other religious around the world to name just a few.
Also, if your lawn needs to be mowed. You have no business playing on the computer in the first place.😉
ATB
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Then Cardinal now Pope Ratzinger speaks with an insite I’ll never share. But, he did say **needlessly kill **or even cause to suffer. All the animals we are discussing I think, are used for food. This is by nature of the act needful.
Click to expand...
Meat is **not needed **for health and has been shown to negatively impact health. It is a luxury food that is eaten by affluent peoples. So you are needlessly killing animals to eat their meat, unless rather you were starving and there was no other food available.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have never seen dairy cows with docked tails, so that must be something fairly new, or perhaps regional. Frankly, I don’t see the sense in it either. Given the way milking runways are constructed now, and with milking machines, I would not think a swinging tail would be all that great a hazard. It may be the idea is to keep things cleaner by preventing a manure-befouled brush from contacting the back of the udder. But I would think the contamination danger from that would be extremely minimal, given that they always swab the udders down with disinfectant prior to milking anyway.🤷
Click to expand...
Just checked online & found an article stating that many farmers are docking tails but it does not seem to have any impact one way or the other on the way disease is spread.The article said the practice began in New Zealand.
 
Marfran said:
Meat is **not needed **for health and has been shown to negatively impact health. It is a luxury food that is eaten by affluent peoples. So you are needlessly killing animals to eat their meat, unless rather you were starving and there was no other food available.
Click to expand...
Just stop with that foolishness.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Just stop with that foolishness.
Click to expand...
What foolishness? Please explain yourself. I have not eaten meat in over 30 years. I know people who have not eaten it for longer than that. It is** not **a necessary part of the diet. There are cultures that eat very little to no meat also.

Did you read the OP? Did you watch the short film in the OP that we are discussing? This IS the topic. The topic is Eating Mercifully.
 
Marfran said:
Blunt impact injury to the head. Well, that explains everything! The impairment, disfunction, irascibility, loss of mental abilities…
Click to expand...
There you go!😉 The underlying reason for docking tails.Or udderllying reason.
 
Marfran said:
Meat is **not needed **for health and has been shown to negatively impact health. It is a luxury food that is eaten by affluent peoples. So you are needlessly killing animals to eat their meat, unless rather you were starving and there was no other food available.
Click to expand...
I do not question your right, or your morality, in refusing to eat meat. That’s your choice. But the Church does not forbid it or condemn it as immoral, and never has.

I respectfully question the assertion that it’s a luxury food eaten by affluent peoples. It is the food of many peoples, affluent and non-affluent. No one would call, e.g., the people out on the Eurasian steppes “affluent”, yet animal products are virtually their only food. Eskimos live almost entirely on meat, and few are affluent. Masai tribesmen exist almost exclusively on meat, milk and animal blood, and they are far from affluent. Desert dwellers worldwide are meat-eaters, and, of necessity, always have been.

In fact, meat-eating has, for millenia, been the prevailing practice of peoples who do NOT live in areas that are productive for crop farming (or wealth), but in areas where the earth was not at all generous toward human life. Fortunately, much of the U.S. is suitable for crop farming, but huge portions of it are not.

Since the Church does not condemn meat-eating, and since the health benefits and detriments are, at most, debateable, it seems to me there is no compelling reason to consign huge segments of the globe to their pre-human state, or to remove a very large portion of the world’s food supply from the human table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top